| 
Posted Aug 15, 2002 by Researcher Who Refuses to Come Up With a Self-Consciously Ironic Name
the saddest thing about mcdonalds is that it is actually the *best* thing about globalization. i hate mcdonalds as much as the next activist, but the things that really make me angry are harder to see.
the real meaning of globalization is indonesian workers doing sixteen-hour days to produce gap clothes or nike trainers, third world farmers losing their livelihoods because of grain imported from the west, people dying because they can't afford anti-AIDS drugs that are protected by patents... mcdonalds is just the public face of all this.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Aug 15, 2002 by Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like
I think if your point is that Bove was picking on an easy target then maybe he'd agree.
But on the other hand, it's worth bearing in mind that none of the other stuff you mention happens in France (to the best of my knowledge), and Bove is a working farmer so jetting out to Indonesia isn't, perhaps, a realistic option for him.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 18, 2002 by Researcher Who Refuses to Come Up With a Self-Consciously Ironic Name
i wasn't having a go at bove, i think he's a great guy. i was just trying to widen the debate a bit.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Apr 15, 2004 by lowlander
sweat shops are disgusting, but sometimes they provide income to workers in an area where no other sources are available. Should we take even that opportunity away from them? If they didn't need the income they would not be working there. Their meager income may improve the local economy to the point where better paying jobs will be created. If we don't like the process, don't buy the products or support the companies.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Apr 15, 2004 by Uncle Ghengis
Hmmm. I've wondered about this myself. I want to buy fairly traded goods - but in the absence of some such things should I still buy from exploted workers - on the pretext that at least they're getting some employement opportunity!?
I just don't know!
|
| | |
| |
Posted Apr 15, 2004 by SDI Divemaster
Why not take the long view? In those countries, you have what can really be looked at as an industrial revolution, which the UK and US went through in the 19th Century.
A largely poor, agrarian workforce moves into cities and starts working in factories controlled by a relatively small upper class. Because even in a sweatshop the pay is a little better than the farm, the jobs are filled. Add to this the ability of women and (sometimes children) to leave the home and work alongside men increases a family’s income exponentially. Unfortunately, these are often dirty, dangerous jobs in terrible conditions at still low wages. Now ask the question: What happened in the west when these things were true?
Answer: The emergence of trade unions. Unions got better wages and benefits and basically created an economic middle class. The standard of living increases, living wages are paid, children leave the workforce, and work becomes safer.
(Then eventually the unions get too powerful, demand too much and give too little. Jobs are moved to another country where wages are lower and there are no unions.)
Like anything else, there is a 'life cycle'.
So if you want to make a difference in those countries, why not show them how to organize? Or you could continue to tear down business that will create jobs and put dollars (or pounds or francs) back into the local economy.
Thanks,
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
